Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Warren: I will consider running for president after the midterms [View all]thesquanderer
(13,171 posts)She's not "ordinary" in the sense that she positions herself more to the left than most Dems.
Though you could also argue she's more honest than some who have entirely reversed course, in that, whether you want to see it or not, she has always left wiggle room when discussing her future. No "Shermanesque" statement was ever issued, and she surely knew that she could issue such a statement at any time. But she was "typical politician" in avoiding making such a statement even when pressed. As far as I know, she has never actually committed/pledged/promised to serve the full 6 year Senate term if elected.
Typical exchange would go something like this:
Q: What are your thoughts about running for President.
A: I am not running for President. I am running for the Senate.
Q: Are you saying you will not run for President?
A: I am not running for President. I am running for the Senate.
That is, when asked for pin-down clarification on a followup, she would never say Yes or No, she would only repeat what she'd already said. (And tense matters, as Bill Clinton taught us. He was arguably acquitted from impeachment by virtue of pointing out what the meaning of "is" is.)
At any rate, one can be an ordinary politician in some respects, and not others. there's no purity test for ordinary-ness. Some of the anti-Warren stuff reminds me of anti-Sanders stuff. Anything that shows he is not 100% perfect is used to make him seem like a fraud. Whoever it is, we're not going to get 100% perfect, and we don't need it. We need to win. And we need to move left (IMO).